Had to smile at "2.01% of turnover". When you're teetering on the brink like the Bulls, £250k is a big deal however its dressed up (or down).

Sorry cibaman will get to yours but I have to add to mats first: yes, strange, Frank the W@nk is missing, but so too is Garrulous Blackbeard. big time.

to comment on your comment. the Leeds settlement, subject to Adey pulling his finger(s) and the Bulls Stats Accounts out and confirming or refuting my calculations, was circa £350K, and we paid it quite successfully over 3 years, just as this smaller amount of £250k is supposed to be. the VAT bill is to be paid over 5 months (thats the one I have difficulty believing is manageable but assuming it is), that leaves us teetering on the brink of extinction right now because of £82000 PAYE. I notice that Hood, who should know, asserted than none of Caisleys camp had pledged a single penny. That tells you everything you need to know about their intentions. £82K to a partner in a leading international law firm and all his buddies... small change.

And the investors/sponsors dont want to put their money in because of this sudden intervention by HMRC? Has strong resonances of Caisley the Thursday before Pledge Date, seeing off Hoods investors. I am not saying that was intentional, as I really do believe it was a knee jerk reaction by Caisley to Hoods ambiguous message about achieving the target. What I am saying is, if you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

when you balance up the figures it is back to the simple basic issue of trading at a loss and the cash flow consequences of that situation. if income exceeded expenditure, no problem with VAT and PAYE. And it was my prediction that Coulby would find no easy answers to that situation given Hood and Bennett had thrown everything at it for the last few years. Reinvent the wheel? No chance.

Nothus To underline Adeys point: would you want to have your company name associated with Odsal? When commentators can only go on about its iconic status and its history rather than its state of the art facilities you know there is a problem. and with 85 employees, an expensive problem, as Caisley said in 2003 when the stadium staff costs were much lower.

Stadiums of low key clubs, run down ones at that, in places like Featherstone, Castleford & Wakefield all have sponsors so I'm not sure there's much of a case for not being able to find one for Odsal there. I doubt the deals are worth much, which may be where the problem lies - you don't want to sell a sponsorship deal off too cheaply, but when every penny counts you probably have to take what you can.

Now Hood & co have been usurped there should be no problem with him revealing what his "business plan" was, what would be the harm - it's not as if they were replaced by people they were on terms with. My guess is that the last lot's "business plan" and potential investors are of the same mythical status as those of the new ones.

A decision has been made NOT to pay HMRC the £82k and, in preference to pay this month's salaries as stated by Mr Couby, publicly, on several occasions. HMRC could have been paid and no winding up order issued if so desired. (money for salries could have paid HMRC)The ONLY and I state again for ADEY the only VAT liability is £250,000 agreed to be paid over 5 months.The other liability is Image Rights which was potentially £500,000 but is NOW £250,000 to be paid over 3 years. With potential income of £12,000,000 over the period that equtes to 2.01% of turnover.

Yes ADey I agree this does sound almost word for word like Hood. Note the use of I. He owns that agreement in thought and deed.

I think the stadium naming rights issue has been a lost opportunity and, as Asim said, we may not have got much for the rights, but 'not much' is better than the 'sweet FA' we did get, especially as things currently stand. I don't think the stadium's condition has been a great detriment either, it's the mentions on radio and TV with the repetition of the sponsor's name which matter far more imo. Whether the financial position has now become an issue is a different matter though, as it's quite likely that many firms wouldn't want their name associated with a failing company.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.Mark Twain

I think the stadium naming rights issue has been a lost opportunity and, as Asim said, we may not have got much for the rights, but 'not much' is better than the 'sweet FA' we did get, especially as things currently stand. I don't think the stadium's condition has been a great detriment either, it's the mentions on radio and TV with the repetition of the sponsor's name which matter far more imo. Whether the financial position has now become an issue is a different matter though, as it's quite likely that many firms wouldn't want their name associated with a failing company.

Would we actually be able to sell the naming rights to the stadium under the new lease arrangements though? when we did the grattan deal we were the primary lease holders. Now we're sub lease holders. As such we may have given up the right to sell the naming rights with the RFL now having that ability.

Would we actually be able to sell the naming rights to the stadium under the new lease arrangements though? when we did the grattan deal we were the primary lease holders. Now we're sub lease holders. As such we may have given up the right to sell the naming rights with the RFL now having that ability.

Short answer is, I don't know.

PH did say at the forum that nothing had changed with regard to the lease (other than it became secondary rather than primary) so if we accept that at face value then, presumably, the club could have sold the rights. Having said that, much has been said which suggests PH didn't totally have a handle on what was going on, so maybe what he said wasn't entirely accurate.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.Mark Twain

I've felt for a number of years, going back to the late 90's that the Bulls often priced themselves out of sponsorship, thikning they could attract more money if the prices were high and it was seen as a premium brand.

As a follower of Rugby League in general, during the 99/2000 season I supported London Broncos by Sponsoring every try Jason Hetherington scored. I paid £15 at the start of the season, and then £2 a try. I think in total it cost me about £23!!!I received a certificate from the club signed by JH, and a mention in the programme. I enquired as to the cheapest option in terms of player sponsorship at Bradford and it was over £200!

The problem now is we are in a state of flux. Nobody has much in the way of definitive information and we are drifting towards the abyss. who would want to invest/donate if their money may be rendered wasted by entering admin anyway?

There's a big spread in the League Express in which we get more of the same tbh.

One interesting point is that Guilfoyle says, "I don't have an appetite for administration as I don't know where I would get the money from to run it. There is no certainty of outcome. I am trying to focus the directors' minds on trying to find someone to buy the club".

All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or it's subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.